My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00420
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00420
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:49:56 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:37:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/20/2002
Description
ISF Section - Contested Instream Flow and Natural Lake Level Recommendations - Water Division 4
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />3. Brief and plain statement of the reasons Trout Unlimited seeks Party status: <br /> <br />TU emphasizes that it supports the CWCB's efforts to secure adequate in-stream <br />flows in this case. . TU submits this Application for Party Status in order to ensure <br />its participation in all and any negotiations concerning the quantification of the in- <br />stream flows at issue herein, and to ensure its ability to submit, for the record, <br />technical evidence, technical witnesses or file legal memoranda. <br /> <br />4. Contested facts, the matters which Trout Unlimited claims should be decided, and <br />a general description of data Trout Unlimited intends to present to the Board: <br /> <br />a. TU will rely on CWCB staff and Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") <br />reports and memos about the subject recommendations, the Division of <br />Wildlife data analysis referenced in the BLM recommendation, all <br />attachments and appendices to the aforementioned documents, information <br />in TU's possession and available from TU's contractor, and any other <br />public information, such as stream gage records. <br /> <br />b. TU identifies the following contested facts and issues: <br /> <br />Whether or not the following CWCB staffiecommendation of 1.6 <br />~f;s (A~,.;l 1 A~n'130) '" 0 "fis ""r""1 May 3" "ud 0 2 c"o 'JT.wule <br />........ \.... ""p.U.l. ...=.. 1..1-' , ""1'.-' \,.I \.I.Y.Lay - J.J, oi:U . .1::; \. <br />I-March 31) is sufficient to preserve the environment ofthe San <br />Miguel River to a reasonable degree; <br /> <br />Whether or not the recommendation of the Bureau of Land <br />Management ("BLM") in the amounts of 4.25 cfs (April I-October <br />31) and 1.5 cfs (November I-March 31) is sufficient to preserve <br />the environment of the San Miguel River to a reasonabre degree; <br /> <br />Whether or not water is physically available to support <br />appropriations in the amounts and time periods recommended by <br />the CWCB staff and/or the BLM; <br /> <br />Whether or not appropriations in the amounts and time periods <br />recommended by the CWCB staff and/or the BLM would cause <br />injury to the water rights of others; and <br /> <br />Whether or not the issues raised in the March 23,2002 Notice to <br />Contest filed by Minion Hydrologic, Jon and Joanne Corzine, and <br />John and Victoria Irwin with regard to the Specie Creek ISF are <br />supported by evidence. <br /> <br />c. TU reserves the right to identify additional contested facts and issues, and <br />additional data and documents upon which it may rely as new information <br />becomes available. <br /> <br />-I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.